I'm here to be of service. I've been an editing since September of 2004, and an admin since November of that year. It appears that arbcom is likely to end up rather larger than it has been in the past, and that's a good thing; with a larger arbcom, the work can be divided and conquered (though of course the procedures will need to be changed.) This will lessen the load on each arbitrator, thus reducing arbcom burnout and speeding up arbcom throughput.

I don't really care what the selection process is. I think I can be very helpful as an arbitrator. I pride myself on being good at understanding both sides of a dispute; I also pride myself on being able to recognize when a dispute exists primarily because one of the disputants wants a dispute.

I think arbcom is doing a pretty good job at the moment but could be doing better.

I've been involved with online community, generally in a moderating role (as sysop of my own BBS as well as a host of many conferences on the Well), since the late '70s. This experience will be useful if I'm asked to join the Arbitration Committee.

Questions

1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. -- Sean| Bla ck 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Michael Snow 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Guettarda 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support. -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. – ugen64 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Cryptic (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support. Thought long about this one, questions finally swung it. Batmanand 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Babajobu 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC), because he knows what Wikipedia is about. reply
13. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support. Carbonite | Talk 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support-- Duk 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support-- ragesoss 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Shanes 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support -- have been impressed by his behavior elsewhere, question answers were good. Kit 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 03:26, Jan. 9, 2006

23. Support. And after reading his answers to Justforasecond, I'm wishing I could vote twice. Calton | Talk 03:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support Fred Bauder 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support -- Crunch 05:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support 172 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Bobet 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support – Clockwork Soul 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support — Catherine\ ^talk 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support. android 79 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support. Fine record, good sense of humour. ～ J. K. 06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support. jni 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support-- cj | talk 07:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support Dalf | Talk 08:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support GabrielF 08:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 08:58 Z
40. Support, fair, level-headed, my experience w/this admin makes me confident he'd be an excellent arbitrator. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support - Szvest 10:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™} reply
43. Support Geogre 11:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support Dan100 ( Talk) 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support. Ambi 11:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support as Mperel. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support -- kingboyk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Clear as crystal. — Nightstallion (?) 12:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support   ALKIVAR ™ 12:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Support due to answer regarding Wiki BoR. common sense. Tom e r ^talk 13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support, sounds reasonable. R adiant _>|< 13:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. support. Brighterorange 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Support Robert McClenon
57. Support Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Support— LeFlyman 17:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Support -- Ferkelparade π 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 17:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Support impressed by his answers to -Ril- -- Doc ^ask? 19:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Support -- Goodoldpolonius2 20:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Vigorously Support Experience and maturity ℬastique▼ ^parℓer♥ ^voir♑ 21:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Support. Appreciate bbs experience. Avriette 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Support. Even-handed and honest. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Support. Wally 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Support Sarah Ewart 01:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. older≠ wiser 02:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Support - based on his excellent answers to questions posed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Support abakharev 05:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Support – Abe Dashiell ^{( t/ c)} 06:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Support. JeremyA 06:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Support. - Jmabel | Talk 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Support Willmcw/ user:Will Beback/10:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Support. Trustworthy. — mark ✎ 12:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Support. -- Viriditas 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Support. A trustworthy editor who answered the questions well. Rje 14:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Support. enochlau ( talk) 14:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Support -- EMS | Talk 15:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Support. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Support. Jacoplane 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Support. Jkelly 19:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Support. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support. No nonsense here. Mu. Halidecyphon 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind when I saw his treatment of Justforasecond. reply

85. Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Support. maclean25 05:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Support. -- Woggly 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. -- Bhadani 09:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Support-- Alhutch 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Support -- Denis Diderot 18:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Support Vegaswikian 18:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Support KTC 19:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Support. Seems principled, and it's nice to see someone who is able to spot users who hide behind guidelines to harass other users. — BrianSmithson 21:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Support. Fair and principled. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
95. Support. -- DelftUser 18:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Support. "...this is Wikipedia, not a court of law, and the goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to pretend to be a legal system." I couldn't agree more. -- Gmaxwell 20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
97. Support - experienced. -- NorkNork 20:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
98. Support with some reservations. Why? ++ Lar: t/ c 03:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
99. Support. Neutrality ^talk 04:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
100. Support. -- Angr ( tɔk) 12:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
101. Weak support. Please be more civil when making ArbCom rulings. Even though your incivility seems somewhat understandable, it is still incivility. Superm401 | Talk 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
102. support. -- Irpen 00:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
103. Support - fairly trustworthy -- Francs 2000 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
104. Support -- Seems to have right attitude and is experienced. - max rspct leave a message 23:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
105. Support. Preaky 07:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Support. Bethefawn 08:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     • Bethefawn does not have suffrage; he registered at 02:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 10 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

106. Support. Gnangarra 13:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
107. Strong support Phil Sandifer 19:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
108. Support WilliamKF 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
109. Support Masonpatriot 04:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
110. Support Kusma (討論) 12:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
111. Support as acceptable. Youngamerican 16:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
112. Support -- Fastfission 22:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
113. Support Pete.Hurd 06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
114. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
115. support William M. Connolley 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
116. support -- Astrokey44| talk 04:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
117. support highly sensible. doesn't tolerate bullshit. didn't notice he was running before. Derex 19:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
118. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
119. Support experience - JustinWick 06:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
120. Support Seems good to me. -- AySz88^ - ^ 03:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
121. Support ~ leif ☺ _{( talk)} 04:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
122. Support Carptrash 06:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
123. Support – Smyth\ ^talk 12:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
124. Support -- Grouse 16:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
125. Support -- deeceevoice 18:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
126. Support Alex43223 19:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
127. Support. HGB 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
128. Support CDThieme 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Zora 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose -- Angelo 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose. Grace Note 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Oppose Justforasecond 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   • Justforasecond does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 22:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

10. Oppose. zen master T 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose. -- Daniel 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose. siafu 08:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose. --10:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by Urthogie ( talk •  contribs) 10:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Due to answer about Wiki Bill of Rights Davidpdx 12:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose dislike his answers to questions.  Grue  13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Weak Oppose I also did not like answers to questions Brian | (Talk) 22:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose. -- HK 22:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Splash ^talk 22:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose based on his treatment of Justforasecond on the questions page. Thryduulf 13:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Ditto Thryduulf. Arbcom requires one to read all evidence from users, even ones who don't express themselves well or are abrasive, and saying "shut up" instead of reading is inappropriate. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Weak Oppose, sometimes a tad too harsh with others. HGB 18:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) change to support. HGB 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

21. Very Weak Oppose, per Quadell. I hope this Justforasecond thing doesn't cost him a seat on ArbCom. Sorry. -- Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose-- Masssiveego 07:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose - weak statement Robdurbar 18:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose - weak statement . not convincing Zeq 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose - Huldra 09:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose. Candidate statement is without substance. Velvetsmog 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose. You seem to have changed your position on civility, so I changed my vote [2] [3]. -- JWSchmidt 03:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. -- Adrian Buehlmann 18:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Weak oppose. Not very impressed with his views on civility, Deeceevoice, or desysopping. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 07:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Strongest possible oppose. User is highly biased towards a certain single POV, and edits articles to ensure that bias. User operates as part of a clique in this manner. In addition, User totally fails to Assume Good Faith, and follow the principle of No Personal Attacks, even in the responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section) -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. oppose Kingturtle 21:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Against. Not an especially helpful admin, hasn't been good at dealing with users and is prone to make reverts claiming to be reverting vandalism when content is factual. ~ Jared ~ 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose. Jpgordon has behaved extremely poorly in the Deeceevoice arbitration and I see no reason to believe that any user involved in arbitration could count on him to perform his duties fairly and ethically. — phh 19:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose - have seen some evidence of gang-uppering by this admin in treatment (and blocking) of certain other users. ElectricRay 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 04:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose, reluctantly, due to apparent lack of understanding of importance of civility to Wikipedia. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Strong oppose. Mainly due to his belief that WP:CIVIL should be changed to "grant the right to say "Fuck off" on one's own User talk page, and only there". I only know him from the Deeceevoice thing, and his defence of Deeceevoice and this personal attack at the time suggest he wouldn't be a great choice of Arbitrator for upholding civility policies. — Matt Crypto 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose. Jim Apple 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply